Banff

[whiskgeek]

A few weeks ago, I tasted a Banff Duncan Taylor 35-year. It was disappointing. Very good, but disappointing. Maybe it was just too smooth for my taste? But my dad had some, and he said it didn't compare to the 30-something Banff he had last year.

My previous excursion into expensive (+$200) whisky didn't go well. 1986 Bowmore - yuck! So I think I'm not going to spending that much on Scotch again for a while.

[richard]

must admit i havent tried banff very much but what i did was okay but thats all i can remeber

i remember trying the millenium springbanks 25 30 35 40 45 and 50

the best two by far were the 30 and 35 year old

the fifty was poor to say the least

just goes to show the older whiskies are not allways the best

you pays your money and takes your chance


richard

[MARS]

Some perfume aromas in your bowmore, maybe?
Bowmore from the eighties are well know for this. Better to avoid them if you don't like that kind of aromas (most people don't)
You should have buy the last banff from Malts of scotland!
http://www.whiskybase.com/whiskies.php? ... kyid=32445
A really incredible stuff! (sadly, I was too slow to buy it)
Be carefull anyway at what you buy today, with the increase of the prices, you have more and more awfull stuff at high prices! Better find some notes from a reliable taster before spend your hard earned cash! (edit : but don't wait too long as the best stuff are not available long. The banff for example, was available for less than a week)

[whiskgeek]

I read about the perfumey '80s Bowmores about a week later. Perfume is one of the worst flavors for me.

I wonder why the Springbank 50 was so poor. There are so many factors that could have caused this. Maybe the whisky wasn't as good back then. The barrels weren't as good back then... They just went downhill after a certain amount of time...